Dalrymple’s Rules of Debate Interpretation

Our Patheos colleague Timothy Dalrymple has posted a list of ten rules regarding interpreting the results of a presidential debate. For example:

1. Television pundits, in the immediate aftermath of the debate, are the worst possible guides to understanding the debate and how it will shape the electoral landscape. It’s just another spin room, except the allegiances and antipathies, the man-crushes and job tryouts are concealed.

4. Candidates aren’t out to “win” the debate. They’re out to win the presidency. The only relevant question — the only relevant question — is this: Did the candidate help or harm his chances on election day?

10. “Winning” the post-debate spin is more important than “winning” the debate itself. An otherwise brilliant performance can be undermined by a single wayward comment exploited in a million ads.

#10 strikes me as particularly relevant, given our culture’s growing fascination with memes. (Exhibit A: The “Binders Full of Women” phenomenon that dogged Romney following the second presidential debate.)

"Radford made a connection between Ender and Hitler.Another possible connection: Could Card have been referring ..."

‘Ender’s Game,’ Genocide, and Moral Culpability
"Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us ..."

Music Matters: David Bowie, Still Not ..."
""that many of us do not accept that a few cells of human DNA constitute ..."

How I Changed My Mind About ..."
"No thought given to the unborn child whose life was 'silenced and oppressed'... sad."

How I Changed My Mind About ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment